Jump to content

Jack White: Questions


Recommended Posts

What about Gary Mack's study? Bill Miller and James Gordon's near recent study? Much more recent than Tony's study. Or, is Tony's study more recent and based on MPI imagery?If MPI imagery was used, it's inaccurate, you realize that don't you? SCALED wrong. Incorrect frame scaling plays havoc when making these kind of measuremnts.

I believe Gary Mack, Miller and Gordon have found Marsh's conclusions to be accurate.

Is this Marsh study the one done in the early 1990's or was that Clint Bradford's study, he did one too?

A simple web search may give you the answer you seek. This is what I found -

The Charles Bronson Film and the Gary Mack study of 1982/83. Ten years before the Anthony Marsh study, Gary Mack undertook a study of the Moorman #5 photograph.
If the information on the web is accurate, then Marsh also did his study long before MPI worked on the Zapruder film.

So that makes at least 4 studies... To the best of my knowledge, none of these studies agree on what Z-frame relates to the Moorman 5 Polaroid. You'd think a seamless comparision of ALL the DPlaza films would be available, but it's not!

Actually the timing of Moorman's photo is not all that difficult to follow in my opinion. The Zapruder film, regardless which scaled version one uses, has to have Hargis advance to a point that his back is west of the view from Zapruder to Moorman. At Z315, Hargis is still slightly overlapping part of Moorman, which is not what is seen in Moorman's number 5 Polaroid. By Z316, Hargis has advanced too far west. That means that Moorman took her photo between Z315 and Z316.

Where'd the .6 come from, there can be NO six tenths of a frame - that's impossible!

One can divide anything up into any denomination they choose. Numbers like 4/8, 1/2, 9/18 are all the same amount. Take a calculator and convert 6/10s into 18ths if you'd rather hear the answer presented in 1/18th segments. It appears that Marsh divided the diatance Hargis traveled between frames Z315/316 into 1/10 segments. He then calculated the position of each 1/10th forward advance against Moorman and found that at the 6/10s mark Hargis had cleared Moorman so not to be blocking any part of her from Zapruder's view.

If your going to post data of this type Mr. Peter's, it would be nice to get ALL the known fact's related to these studies out there -- so reasonable people can make reasonable decisions...

If one demonstrates that 2+2=4 ... why would they have to post where others took 2+2 and got 5 or 2+2 and got 44? The approach Marsh took is sensible and easy to follow - if of course you are one of those reasonable people.

Edited by Larry Peters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 124
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

What about Gary Mack's study? Bill Miller and James Gordon's near recent study? Much more recent than Tony's study. Or, is Tony's study more recent and based on MPI imagery?If MPI imagery was used, it's inaccurate, you realize that don't you? SCALED wrong. Incorrect frame scaling plays havoc when making these kind of measuremnts.

I believe Gary Mack, Miller and Gordon have found Marsh's conclusions to be accurate.

dgh01: Believe? they have or they haven't. If so are the concessions posted where researchers can view them? One of the bad things about this nonsense - that's why I like books, you can pick it up, find a page, read the info - follow up on the footnotes....

Is this Marsh study the one done in the early 1990's or was that Clint Bradford's study, he did one too?

A simple web search may give you the answer you seek. This is what I found -

The Charles Bronson Film and the Gary Mack study of 1982/83. Ten years before the Anthony Marsh study, Gary Mack undertook a study of the Moorman #5 photograph.
If the information on the web is accurate, then Marsh also did his study long before MPI worked on the Zapruder film.

dgh01: not seeking an answer thanks - ground plowed years ago

So that makes at least 4 studies... To the best of my knowledge, none of these studies agree on what Z-frame relates to the Moorman 5 Polaroid. You'd think a seamless comparision of ALL the DPlaza films would be available, but it's not!

Actually the timing of Moorman's photo is not all that difficult to follow in my opinion. The Zapruder film, regardless which scaled version one uses, has to have Hargis advance to a point that his back is west of the view from Zapruder to Moorman. At Z315, Hargis is still slightly overlapping part of Moorman, which is not what is seen in Moorman's number 5 Polaroid. By Z316, Hargis has advanced too far west. That means that Moorman took her photo between Z315 and Z316.

dgh01: In thew street or the grass? LOL! I can see where you can arrive at that, it's normal -- however from my standpoint -- I can't verify that the extant Z-film is indeed the camera original - without that -- it's ALL background noise! Or as Harold Wiesberg use to say -- a Whitewash!

Where'd the .6 come from, there can be NO six tenths of a frame - that's impossible!

One can divide anything up into any denomination they choose. Numbers like 4/8, 1/2, 9/18 are all the same amount. Take a calculator and convert 6/10s into 18ths if you'd rather hear the answer presented in 1/18th segments. It appears that Marsh divided the diatance Hargis traveled between frames Z315/316 into 1/10 segments. He then calculated the position of each 1/10th forward advance against Moorman and found that at the 6/10s mark Hargis had cleared Moorman so not to be blocking any part of her from Zapruder's view.

dgh01: Might want to have Tony update his material -- I queried him earlier today on the big board, as to updates or a new analysis - he hasn't answered there are none on his website... Unfortunately in the film business a frame is a frame is a FRAME, not 6/10's of a frame. Therefore it's either 315 or 316, yes?

Today with NTSC based imagery interlaced each frame is broken down into 2 fields [upper and lower], get's to be a real mess, a REAL mess. That's why I like, film provenece, who, what, when, where and why of the image[ry] discussed - when someone tells me these things my stomach settles down, it's like maybe this person actually knows what they're talking about. Of course IF you believe the Z-film is altered then the numbers are meaningless -- you are aware of when the frame numbers were 1st made public?

If Mary Moorman was in the street for he infamous Polaroid

A

L

L bets are off ... hence: the endless street/grass debate...

If your going to post data of this type Mr. Peter's, it would be nice to get ALL the known fact's related to these studies out there -- so reasonable people can make reasonable decisions...

If one demonstrates that 2+2=4 ... why would they have to post where others took 2+2 and got 5 or 2+2 and got 44? The approach Marsh took is sensible and easy to follow - if of course you are one of those reasonable people.

dgh01: That's a problem isn't it? Do we know the others are wrong, if so WHY are they wrong and why is Tony correct, if your just trying to sell Tony's approach and discount the others, hey -- have at it! He's taken a beating on the boards that past few years, inaccuracies abound, but he keeps on trucking! What about the Miller-Gordon study, it might STILL be on the Lancer website.

You on the USA side of the pond? If not I suspect you have no inkling about NTSC interlaced imagery 30fps or 29.97fps - you deal in PAL imagery 25fps [progressive scan]

David Healy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[snip]

Mr. Healy - you have been invited several times to address any of the critiques of White's claims and you have chosen not to do so, but rather you have taken the low road and just acted like it's not worth discussing. Then you post some dribble about provocateur's and instigators, which seems to be all you have been doing in the past several replies you have placed on this thread. Please try and stay focused and explain what is wrong in the critque Miller laid out. If it is so wrong, then you should have no trouble proving your position. If I have misread Miller's critique, then I want someone to show me where he erred because it is worth my time to know about it.

Mr. Peter's, my take is printed in The Great Zapruder Film Hoax - hardly the LOW road as you put it -- out there for the whole world to see and judge, I eagerly await your contribution - [a note to the lurkers: the whole presentation from the book can be found at JFKResearch.com. My presentation in HOAX [with additional imagery and full text edit] will be donated to this forum if JSimkin requests said.

I've been dealing with closed minds and those with agenda's for what seems like years and years concerning this subject, most seem like normal rational well educated folks -- they just can't get their arms around the following concept -- they all parrot with one voice: it's impossible, the government can't/didn't lie to us...

well, sorry Virgina, they can and DID!

You've got 3 contributors to HOAX on this forum, Mr. Peter's -- when are you going to get serious and attack the science and cinematography regarding the murder evidence -- we don't need Moorman, Marsh, Miller or Gary Mack! We need gut's!

If Jack White is right 1/10th of the time -- then LHOswald did NOT act alone - there was a conspiracy to commit the murder of a sitting US president -that ain't taking the "low" road Mr. Peter's, it's just pissed off US citizens wanting to know what happened that day in Dealey Plaza...

For that matter LHOswald may of been what he claimed himself to be a "patsy" we'll leave that to the next generation historians, most of today's historians were asleep at the wheel regarding this issue

Your deal!

David Healy

p.s. I spoke to Gary Mack today, evidently he hasn't read the 2nd pronting of HOAX, bet he has by now...your name never came up :-)

Edited by David G. Healy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been dealing with closed minds and those with agenda's for what seems like years and years concerning this subject, most seem like normal rational well educated folks -- they just can't get their arms around the following concept -- they all parrot with one voice: it's impossible, the government can't/didn't lie to us...

well, sorry Virgina, they can and DID!

I think they can appreciate your saying it was possible, but the only thing you people have shown is a bunch of flawed observations for proof that it happened. When asked to address the critique concerning those observations - you make up excuses about it not being worth your time.

You've got 3 contributors to HOAX on this forum, Mr. Peter's -- when are you going to get serious and attack the science and cinematography regarding the murder evidence -- we don't need Moorman, Marsh, Miller or Gary Mack! We need gut's!

Not a one of them contributors have addressed the critique of their claims. So we don't need guts, but rather evidence that stands up on it's own legs.

If Jack White is right 1/10th of the time -- then LHOswald did NOT act alone - there was a conspiracy to commit the murder of a sitting US president -that ain't taking the "low" road Mr. Peter's, it's just pissed off US citizens wanting to know what happened that day in Dealey Plaza...

Please try and stay focused here. We have not been discussing whether Oswald acted alone. I think most, if not all CT's like myself believe that more than one person was involved in the assassination of JFK. This thread and my post have been about the evidence concerning photo and film alteration, which has nothing to do with Lee Oswald.

p.s. I spoke to Gary Mack today, evidently he hasn't read the 2nd pronting of HOAX, bet he has by now...your name never came up :-)

There should not have been any reason for my name to have come up. Did you ask his opinion about the critique on Lancer concerning the claims made in TGZFH? Did you ask his opinion as to the validity of the claims made in the book, itself?

Edited by Larry Peters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been dealing with closed minds and those with agenda's for what seems like years and years concerning this subject, most seem like normal rational well educated folks -- they just can't get their arms around  the following concept -- they all parrot with one voice: it's impossible, the government can't/didn't lie to us...

well, sorry Virgina, they can and DID!

I think they can appreciate your saying it was possible, but the only thing you people have shown is a bunch of flawed observations for proof that it happened. When asked to address the critique concerning those observations - you make up excuses about it not being worth your time.

dgh01: "you people"? Mr. Peter's. Have we become a blight [sp.?], a thorn in the the WCR endorser's side? ROFL -- HaroldW too, was that back in 1965, I consider that GREAT company. Lest I remind you, even LBJ felt there was a conspiracy! I could keep *you* busy for the next 5 years contradicting all those that felt and not only FELT, perhaps KNEW there was a "conspiracy" to murder JFK.

What's NOT worth my time Mr. Peter's is debating with someone that knows little about the subject - especially the photographic evidence! Realize it or not, you're now being educated - pay attention, if you want respect as a researcher regarding the Zapruder and related films.If you're a hatchet guy, well, give it your best shot... Above all do *original film research*, then post it where we ALL can review it. We're out there, come and join us... Start threads here or elsewhere that ask pertinent questions about  film re the JFK Assassination

-----------------

You've got 3 contributors to HOAX on this forum, Mr. Peter's -- when are you going to get serious and attack the science and cinematography regarding the murder evidence -- we don't need Moorman, Marsh, Miller or Gary Mack! We need gut's!

Not a one of them contributors have addressed the critique of their claims. So we don't need guts, but rather evidence that stands up on it's own legs.

dgh01: Mr. Peter's perhap's your internet searches has failed to find the one and only website created for answers re: TGZFH contributors responses to ALL those critics questioning the theses put forward in TGZFH. I might add, we did create quite a stir on the established JFK boards. So much so, a advisarial team of NOTED researchers (of the non Z-film alteration persuasion) questioned the contributors, US - our responses were posted to the internet site, within hours -- guess what? Only the peanut gallery continues the attack. Who do they attack? Jack White of course! Those of us who participate in serious study of the DPlaza films don't pay much attention to those around the world that demand responses to elementary questions that have been answered endlessly months, years and sometimes MANY years ago. Check out the website, I'm SURE you have the URL's -- let us know what you think, all reasonable comments will be taken under advisement --

--------------------

If Jack White is right 1/10th of the time -- then LHOswald did NOT act alone - there was a conspiracy to commit the murder of a sitting US president - that  ain't taking the "low" road Mr. Peter's, it's just pissed off US citizens wanting to know what happened that day in Dealey Plaza...

Please try and stay focused here. We have not been discussing whether Oswald acted alone. I think most, if not all CT's like myself believe that more than one person was involved in the assassination of JFK. This thread and my post have been about the evidence concerning photo and film alteration, which has nothing to do with Lee Oswald.

dgh01: Mr. Peter's, I am focused, you'll pardon me if I 'might' question your sincerity regarding your CT status, many wolves in sheep clothing around this investigation, lot's of people want to write books you know :-) You seem to have forgot the real premise of this research, was there a conspiracy to assassinate the JFK [a then sitting Presidenbt of the USofA]. Were the films and photos of said event changed (as many believe) in ANY manner to cover up what (many believe) happened that day in November -- pretty simple concept, actually.

And for me? Years ago, I could careless if the film was altered - a non starter. My interest was aroused because of folks like yourself, and the endless attacks (some quite personal) of those doing the research, in this case, Z-film researchers who deal/dealt with alteration scenarios of ANY photo/film having to do with the assassination... AGENDA'S abound...

And the beat goes on.....

----------------

p.s. I spoke to Gary Mack today, evidently he hasn't read the 2nd pronting of HOAX, bet he has by now...your name never came up :-)

There should not have been reason for my name to have come up. Did you ask his opinion about the critique on Lancer concerning the claims made in TGZFH? Did you ask his opinion as to the validity of the claims made in the book, itself?

dgh01: he (and many others, Dr. Josiah Thompson amongst them and the remainder of the gang of 5) are **WELL** aware of  TGZFH -- btw, it was the gang of 5 questions and critiques that were addressed. Based on your query above, it appears you really haven't done your homework? Might want get focused.

Perhap's JSimkin would like to do a ONE time on-line conference with the contributors of TGZFH - he [John Simkin] being the moderator -- you up for seeing something like that happen on this forum? I'm sure I can run ithe concept by the contributors and have an answer shortly.

David Healy

Edited by David G. Healy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

dgh01: "you people"? Mr. Peter's. Have we become a blight [sp.?], a thorn in the the WCR endorser's side? ROFL -- HaroldW too, was that back in 1965, I consider that GREAT company. Lest I remind you, even LBJ felt there was a conspiracy! I could keep *you* busy for the next 5 years contradicting all those that felt and not only FELT, perhaps KNEW there was a "conspiracy" to murder JFK.

I don't understand the reason for this answer. I thought that I made it clear that I too, am a CT's. You can list the names of CT's until the cows come home and it will not address the mistakes made in TGZFH that were said to prove film and photo alteration. Rather than you continuing to avoid the errors said about Mr. White's claims by offering replies that don't address anything, how about taking a moment to point out why the critique on Lancer is in error? Please be somewhat specific if you can.

What's NOT worth my time Mr. Peter's is debating with someone that knows little about the subject - especially the photographic evidence! Realize it or not, you're now being educated - pay attention, if you want respect as a researcher regarding the Zapruder and related films.If you're a hatchet guy, well, give it your best shot... Above all do *original film research*, then post it where we ALL can review it.

Mr. Healy - we are right here and now. This site doesn't allow the extent of image volume that can be attached to a reply like JFKLancer does and that is why you were offered a link to those detailed critiques. So far you have done nothing but avoid them. I would think that you would relish the idea of showing this forum what's wrong with them and how Miller got it all wrong.

dgh01: Mr. Peter's perhap's your internet searches has failed to find the one and only website created for answers re: TGZFH contributors responses to ALL those critics questioning the theses put forward in TGZFH. I might add, we did create quite a stir on the established JFK boards.

You have created nothing. The only stir that occurred on JFKLancer was Jim Fetzer trying to place the blame for those faulty claims in his book on the people that invented them. Some of those claims have been referenced on this site with not one shred of evidence presented by you as to what is wrong with the critique in question.

Those of us who participate in serious study of the DPlaza films don't pay much attention to those around the world that demand responses to elementary questions that have been answered endlessly months, years and sometimes MANY years ago.

If you were serious, then you'd educate the members of this site what is wrong with the points raised in the critique. All you seem to be interested in right now is saying how serious you are about the study of the DP films and photos, while demonstrating that you are not actually serious enough to address the errors being pointed out concerning the film and photo alteration claims.

dgh01: Mr. Peter's, I am focused, you'll pardon me if I 'might' question your sincerity regarding your CT status, many wolves in sheep clothing around this investigation, lot's of people want to write books you know :-) You seem to have forgot the real premise of this research, was there a conspiracy to assassinate the JFK [a then sitting Presidenbt of the USofA]. Were the films and photos of said event changed (as many believe) in ANY manner to cover up what (many believe) happened that day in November -- pretty simple concept, actually.

The best way to question my sincerity is to address the critique on Lancer. The days of the 'good ol' boys club' is over. We need to not just be saying the films and photos are altered, but also showing accurate proof of it. I don't think that is to much to ask.

dgh01: he (and many others, Dr. Josiah Thompson amongst them and the remainder of the gang of 5) are **WELL** aware of  TGZFH -- btw, it was the gang of 5 questions and critiques that were addressed. Based on your query above, it appears you really haven't done your homework? Might want get focused.

Please start picking some of the claims critiqued on Lancer and we'll see who is more focused. There must be a couple of dozenof them to chose from if you haven't liked the ones already mentioned in this thread.

Perhap's JSimkin would like to do a ONE time on-line conference with the contributors of TGZFH - he [John Simkin] being the moderator -- you up for seeing something like that happen on this forum? I'm sure I can run ithe concept by the contributors and have an answer shortly.

You and Jack White have been a part of this thread for several days and haven't addressed anything. You've made numerous replies and not a one of them told what was wrong with any of the critiques shown here. Mr. White is the author of most all of those claims ... who else needs to take part on this subject to get he or you to address the issues. Now please go back and address any one of the critiques mentioned earlier and after we get through them, then we'll take on some more.

Edited by Larry Peters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In an email I sent to Gary Mack at the 6th Floor Museaum in Dealey Plaza, I asked the following -

Mr. Gary Mack,

In Jim Fetzer's book there is a section that deals with Mr. David Healy's theory over the possibility of the Zapruder film being altered. I would think that if any of this were true, then Mr. Healy would have produced some experts to support his position. What can you share with me concerning any experts other than Zavada looking at the camera original and their being able to reach a conclusion as to the films authenticity? Are there signs on the alleged original Zapruder film that an expert would know what to look for and so on and have any signs been found to date that would make one think the alleged original Zapruder film isn't the genuine artifact? Any information you may have to offer would be most appreciated.

Thanks,

Larry Peters

Gary Macks reply is seen below:

Not a single expert in the field of motion picture special effects believes, or has noticed, any signs of alteration in the Zapruder film. Despite Oliver Stone's and some of Hollywood's top experts repeated examinations and despite the proliferation of high quality frame images, not a single expert in the field supports the alteration theory.

At one point, film technology expert Robert Ryan's name was trotted out as one who supposedly had questions about some of the suspected alterations. But a few summers ago, Ryan examined the camera original Zapruder film at the National Archives along with many other experts in film technology and preservation. Also present was Kennedy assassination photo expert Richard Trask. According to Trask, once he made Ryan aware of the time line (something others had not done) in which any such alteration had to have been made, Ryan changed his mind and no longer supports any alteration theory.

Nor does anyone else who knows the full story of the Zapruder film and all the other photographic records of the assassination.

Gary Mack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In an email I sent to Gary Mack at the 6th Floor Museaum in Dealey Plaza, I asked the following -

Mr. Gary Mack,

In Jim Fetzer's book there is a section that deals with Mr. David Healy's theory over the possibility of the Zapruder film being altered. I would think that if any of this were true, then Mr. Healy would have produced some experts to support his position. What can you share with me concerning any experts other than Zavada looking at the camera original and their being able to reach a conclusion as to the films authenticity? Are there signs on the alleged original Zapruder film that an expert would know what to look for and so on and have any signs been found to date that would make one think the alleged original Zapruder film isn't the genuine artifact? Any information you may have to offer would be most appreciated.

Thanks,

Larry Peters

Gary Macks reply is seen below:

Not a single expert in the field of motion picture special effects believes, or has noticed, any signs of alteration in the Zapruder film.  Despite Oliver Stone's and some of Hollywood's top experts repeated examinations and despite the proliferation of high quality frame images, not a single expert in the field supports the alteration theory. 

At one point, film technology expert Robert Ryan's name was trotted out as one who supposedly had questions about some of the suspected alterations.  But a few summers ago, Ryan examined the camera original Zapruder film at the National Archives along with many other experts in film technology and preservation.  Also present was Kennedy assassination photo expert Richard Trask.  According to Trask, once he made Ryan aware of the time line (something others had not done) in which any such alteration had to have been made, Ryan changed his mind and no longer supports any alteration theory.

Nor does anyone else who knows the full story of the Zapruder film and all the other photographic records of the assassination.

Gary Mack

You're a conspiracy theorist. Do you believe that the Dallas doctors were right when they said the back of the President's head was missing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're a conspiracy theorist. Do you believe that the Dallas doctors were right when they said the back of the President's head was missing?

Yes I certainly believe the Dallas doctors, but the hole they seen was from the bones being sprung open.

Mr. SPECTER - Before proceeding to describe what you did in connection with the tracheostomy, will you more fully describe your observation with respect to the head wound?

Dr. McCLELLAND - As I took the position at the head of the table that I have already described, to help out with the tracheotomy, I was in such a position that I could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted. It had been shattered, apparently, by the force of the shot so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral haft, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out. There was a large amount of bleeding which was occurring mainly from the large venous channels in the skull which had been blasted open.

Edited by Larry Peters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In an email I sent to Gary Mack at the 6th Floor Museaum in Dealey Plaza, I asked the following -

Mr. Gary Mack,

In Jim Fetzer's book there is a section that deals with Mr. David Healy's theory over the possibility of the Zapruder film being altered. I would think that if any of this were true, then Mr. Healy would have produced some experts to support his position. What can you share with me concerning any experts other than Zavada looking at the camera original and their being able to reach a conclusion as to the films authenticity? Are there signs on the alleged original Zapruder film that an expert would know what to look for and so on and have any signs been found to date that would make one think the alleged original Zapruder film isn't the genuine artifact? Any information you may have to offer would be most appreciated.

Thanks,

Gary Macks reply is seen below:

Not a single expert in the field of motion picture special effects believes, or has noticed, any signs of alteration in the Zapruder film.  Despite Oliver Stone's and some of Hollywood's top experts repeated examinations and despite the proliferation of high quality frame images, not a single expert in the field supports the alteration theory.

Larry Peters

Maybe someday Gary Mack and company will provide all the names of those "experts" - I've yet to hear but ONE name and it's been what? 4, 5, 6... years+ ?

Just more noise... rat-a-tat-tat

------------------- 

At one point, film technology expert Robert Ryan's name was trotted out as one who supposedly had questions about some of the suspected alterations.  But a few summers ago, Ryan examined the camera original Zapruder film at the National Archives along with many other experts in film technology and preservation.  Also present was Kennedy assassination photo expert Richard Trask.  According to Trask, once he made Ryan aware of the time line (something others had not done) in which any such alteration had to have been made, Ryan changed his mind and no longer supports any alteration theory.

dgh01: ah, yes the timeline, the real question is, WHO's time line? I suspect the Z-film would never make into a court of law, seeing that the chain of evidence was/is broken...  -- we're racheting it up a notch, I see... I suggest for those that care - take a look at TGZFH -- asking so called film "experts" that have NO knowledge of optical film printing special effects [which were available in 1963] is a step forward, I guess. However I know off NO public comment made by Robert Ryan [further that, what was a "film technology  dude looking at the Z-film for -- that's like Roland Zavada telling me how a optical printer works -- he doesn't know -- great at film properties, but doesn't know squat about film effects] stating he changed his mind. OR for that matter TRASK! As for TRASK, will you make available his bonifides? First time Great at amassing a database of JFK Assassination film/photos, but can he tell me or you what makes up a composite? I seriously doubt, but go ahead refer to him as a film expert...

btw, what test made up this "inspection" of the Z-film? The one that Trask and company performed, in fact: what did they find that told them the film was NOT altered? The boy's just lay out the film on the light table and discuss timelines? Roland Zavada was most interested in my take on the time line -- we discussed it while he was out west for a SMPTE meeting a few weeks ago.

You have my permission to pass this along to Gary -Tell Gary hello for me, I've made you day Mr. Peter's.

-----------------

Nor does anyone else who knows the full story of the Zapruder film and all the other photographic records of the assassination.

dgh01:Cost us USofA taxpayers 16million bucks [and still counting], I think we deserve to know -- don't you Gary?

------------------

David Healy

Gary Mack

:(
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In an email I sent to Gary Mack at the 6th Floor Museaum in Dealey Plaza, I asked the following -

Mr. Gary Mack,

In Jim Fetzer's book there is a section that deals with Mr. David Healy's theory over the possibility of the Zapruder film being altered. I would think that if any of this were true, then Mr. Healy would have produced some experts to support his position. What can you share with me concerning any experts other than Zavada looking at the camera original and their being able to reach a conclusion as to the films authenticity? Are there signs on the alleged original Zapruder film that an expert would know what to look for and so on and have any signs been found to date that would make one think the alleged original Zapruder film isn't the genuine artifact? Any information you may have to offer would be most appreciated.

Thanks,

Gary Macks reply is seen below:

Not a single expert in the field of motion picture special effects believes, or has noticed, any signs of alteration in the Zapruder film.  Despite Oliver Stone's and some of Hollywood's top experts repeated examinations and despite the proliferation of high quality frame images, not a single expert in the field supports the alteration theory.

Larry Peters

Maybe someday Gary Mack and company will provide all the names of those "experts" - I've yet to hear but ONE name and it's been what? 4, 5, 6... years+ ?

Just more noise... rat-a-tat-tat

------------------- 

At one point, film technology expert Robert Ryan's name was trotted out as one who supposedly had questions about some of the suspected alterations.  But a few summers ago, Ryan examined the camera original Zapruder film at the National Archives along with many other experts in film technology and preservation.  Also present was Kennedy assassination photo expert Richard Trask.  According to Trask, once he made Ryan aware of the time line (something others had not done) in which any such alteration had to have been made, Ryan changed his mind and no longer supports any alteration theory.

dgh01: ah, yes the timeline, the real question is, WHO's time line? I suspect the Z-film would never make into a court of law, seeing that the chain of evidence was/is broken...  -- we're racheting it up a notch, I see... I suggest for those that care - take a look at TGZFH -- asking so called film "experts" that have NO knowledge of optical film printing special effects [which were available in 1963] is a step forward, I guess. However I know off NO public comment made by Robert Ryan [further that, what was a "film technology  dude looking at the Z-film for -- that's like Roland Zavada telling me how a optical printer works -- he doesn't know -- great at film properties, but doesn't know squat about film effects] stating he changed his mind. OR for that matter TRASK! As for TRASK, will you make available his bonifides? First time Great at amassing a database of JFK Assassination film/photos, but can he tell me or you what makes up a composite? I seriously doubt, but go ahead refer to him as a film expert...

btw, what test made up this "inspection" of the Z-film? The one that Trask and company performed, in fact: what did they find that told them the film was NOT altered? The boy's just lay out the film on the light table and discuss timelines? Roland Zavada was most interested in my take on the time line -- we discussed it while he was out west for a SMPTE meeting a few weeks ago.

You have my permission to pass this along to Gary -Tell Gary hello for me, I've made you day Mr. Peter's.

-----------------

Nor does anyone else who knows the full story of the Zapruder film and all the other photographic records of the assassination.

dgh01:Cost us USofA taxpayers 16million bucks [and still counting], I think we deserve to know -- don't you Gary?

------------------

David Healy

Gary Mack

:(
Link to comment
Share on other sites

evidently you selectively snip: read Mr. Peter's -- Jack White and I were not put on this earth to become playthings for a few select WCR supporters -- your not much of a CT'er, but you'll grow into it...

below is the part Mr. Peter's evidently forgot to read [from earlier in the thread]:

================

Peters: Not a one of them contributors have addressed the critique of their claims. So we don't need guts, but rather evidence that stands up on it's own legs.

dgh01: Mr. Peter's perhap's your internet searches has failed to find the one and only website created for answers re: TGZFH contributors responses to ALL those critics questioning the theses put forward in TGZFH. I might add, we did create quite a stir on the established JFK boards. So much so, a advisarial team of NOTED researchers (of the non Z-film alteration persuasion) questioned the contributors, US - our responses were posted to the internet site, within hours -- guess what? Only the peanut gallery continues the attack. Who do they attack? Jack White of course! Those of us who participate in serious study of the DPlaza films don't pay much attention to those around the world that demand responses to elementary questions that have been answered endlessly months, years and sometimes MANY years ago. Check out the website, I'm SURE you have the URL's -- let us know what you think, all reasonable comments will be taken under advisement --

[added: the link is NOT available on LANCER]

--------------------

If Jack White is right 1/10th of the time -- then LHOswald did NOT act alone - there was a conspiracy to commit the murder of a sitting US president - that  ain't taking the "low" road Mr. Peter's, it's just pissed off US citizens wanting to know what happened that day in Dealey Plaza...

Peters: Please try and stay focused here. We have not been discussing whether Oswald acted alone. I think most, if not all CT's like myself believe that more than one person was involved in the assassination of JFK. This thread and my post have been about the evidence concerning photo and film alteration, which has nothing to do with Lee Oswald.

dgh01: Mr. Peter's, I am focused, you'll pardon me if I 'might' question your sincerity regarding your CT status, many wolves in sheep clothing around this investigation, lot's of people want to write books you know :-) You seem to have forgot the real premise of this research, was there a conspiracy to assassinate the JFK [a then sitting Presidenbt of the USofA]. Were the films and photos of said event changed (as many believe) in ANY manner to cover up what (many believe) happened that day in November -- pretty simple concept, actually.

And for me? Years ago, I could careless if the film was altered - a non starter. My interest was aroused because of folks like yourself, and the endless attacks (some quite personal) of those doing the research, in this case, Z-film researchers who deal/dealt with alteration scenarios of ANY photo/film having to do with the assassination... AGENDA'S abound...

And the beat goes on.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're a conspiracy theorist. Do you believe that the Dallas doctors were right when they said the back of the President's head was missing?

Yes I certainly believe the Dallas doctors, but the hole they seen was from the bones being sprung open.

Mr. SPECTER - Before proceeding to describe what you did in connection with the tracheostomy, will you more fully describe your observation with respect to the head wound?

Dr. McCLELLAND - As I took the position at the head of the table that I have already described, to help out with the tracheotomy, I was in such a position that I could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted. It had been shattered, apparently, by the force of the shot so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral haft, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out. There was a large amount of bleeding which was occurring mainly from the large venous channels in the skull which had been blasted open.

Is that why the massive rear defect is not visible in the "Zapruder" film?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is that why the massive rear defect is not visible in the "Zapruder" film?

Actually - the avulsion is seen on the back of JFK's head in the Zapruder film. Groden pointed it out long ago and Miller in recent times has shown comparisons from both the Nix and Zapruder films detailing the "coning effect" of the back of Kennedy's head. Miller said that with the fractured bones sprung open and the hair still attached to them that the hole would not be expected to be seen from Zapruder's angle. He points out that even Dr. McClelland said that as he stood at the head of the table with the angle of view that he had - it allowed him to see into the opening of the head.

Edited by Larry Peters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...